Russia refuses to ratify Kyoto protocol

Originally posted by SpyMoose
lets see... that’s an article from an economist, an online petition, and an association of car drives. That’s punditry, not science.
Click to expand...
Yes, the ABD is a special interest group with an agenda. Fair enough. We'll strike that from the record. But what reservations do you have against The Economist? Being an international paragon of analysis, they are widely respected everywhere. So why is their evidence inadmissible, in your opinion? And how can you discount the qualified opinions of nearly 20,000 scientists, especially when that is exactly what you asked for?
But I agree with nico that its a topic for another thread. The issue at hand is wether or not Russia will adopt Kyoto, and it looks like the answer is yes, despite your first impressions in this thread, that rejection was just bluster from somone who's opinion didn't matter, and it makes economic sence for Russia to ratify.
Click to expand...
Which is fine, and has its place here as well. However, politics and science are joined at the hip around this issue. Maintaining ignorance of one precipitates ignorance of the other. Fighter pilots have to learn about their aircraft before they leave flight school, you know.

If you're asking for my thoughts on Russia's refusal or adoption of it, I don't see why Russia would not ratify. They could make a killing selling their overhead off to some abhorrent polluter like China. Which is exactly why Kyoto will accomplish nothing. Not even what it sets out to do.
 
However, politics and science are joined at the hip around this issue. Maintaining ignorance of one precipitates ignorance of the other. Fighter pilots have to learn about their aircraft before they leave flight school, you know.


Yes, but you seem to be under the impression that Kyoto can be effectively rebutted.You do realize that Russia is not rejecting Kyoto because of the science, but because of the economic impact. The topic is about Russia no? Then again let's improve our reading comprehension shall we. Secondly ignorance on the issue is not the issue. The issue is set, your logic would imply that the pilot has to re-invent the airplane to fly it, meanwhile the airplane (Kyoto) already exists as fact.

Which is exactly why Kyoto will accomplish nothing. Not even what it sets out to do.

Then obviously you shouldn't be talking about something you don't know about. Kyoto in the first stage is to decrease the amount of CO2 emissions so that the third world could make up the difference. I told you (dyslexia?) before that Kyoto is a first stage in a long process. The thing Kyoto is supposed to do is indirectly cause innovation and in essence creates cheaper, cleaner energy by forcing the 1st world to innovate and in turn give that to the 3rd world. Yup, yup, yup...again you insist on looking like a idiot Stokes.
 
Originally gurgled by nico
bunch of shit
Click to expand...
cupojoe.jpg
 
Oh if Goofy allows that masse of dyslexic stupidity on the site. I mean really, are you this pathetic? I am writing in big lettering so you can more easily understand it Stokes. Admit defeat child. Why look more stupid then you should? I mean look at the size of that lettering that is probably the only one you could have read with any cognitive coherency. Go to a Sylvan learning centre or something GO HERE STOKES IT SHOULD BE OF KEEN INTEREST TO YOU:

KEEN INTEREST!


getz_fig6.gif


idiot.gif
WE KNOW STOKES, WE KNOW!
 
Last edited:
Good News

Last Post on sci? Or on this subject oh dyslexic one?Vous êtes un morceau américain stupide de merde... Merci.
 
Last edited:
Bad news, Stokes

...if this is decided upon during the meeting:
Countries refusing to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases should face trade sanctions, according to a British independent think-tank.

The New Economics Foundation wants the EU to tax imports from these countries because they enjoy a competitive advantage as energy costs increase.

Signed-up countries are currently meeting in Italy to discuss the treaty.

New Economics Foundation spokesman Andrew Simms told BBC Radio 4's Today programme EU countries would be within their rights to "work out the cost of the free ride America is getting" and raise that amount.

"There are very few signals the United States understands - they do understand economic signals," Mr Simms added.
Click to expand...
full source here
 
Re: Bad news, Stokes

Originally posted by kajolishot
...if this is decided upon during the meeting:

full source here
Click to expand...
For every scientist that puts stock in it, I can show you one that doesn't. Like I said, the jury is still out, and it will continue to be until the legitimate scientific studies are completed - all of which probably won't be done until at least 2020, due chiefly to the lack of long-term data tabulation to support research.
Originally posted by nico
Last Post on sci? Or on this subject oh dyslexic one?Vous êtes un morceau américain stupide de merde... Merci.
Click to expand...
It took you only 38 minutes to put that one together. You're improving.

EDIT: Oh hay guys, looks like man is to blame for global warming after all:
'Prehistoric man began global warming'

Date: December 11 2003

Measurements of ancient air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice offers evidence that humans have been changing the global climate since thousands of years before the industrial revolution.

From 8000 years ago, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide began to rise as humans started clearing forests, planting crops and raising livestock, a scientist said on Tuesday. Methane levels started increasing 3000 years later.
Click to expand...
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/12/10/1070732281706.html
 
Last edited:
Idiocy reigns supreme at dyslexiawalt's house. Let's see why I think you have serious reading problems shall I:

Stokes Dyslexiawalt:

last post
Click to expand...

12-10-03 at 06:56 AM

Yet the idiot a this time posted again:

12-10-03 at 09:22 PM

then

Edited by Stokes Pennwalt on 12-10-03 at 10:57 PM

To post again? Did you just contradict yourself oh great dyslexic one. And hey look it only took you 95 minutes to edit yours. Does it take you that long is cognitively make a coherent thought, that has again escaped you? Simply Amazing.
 
You guys coming down on Stokes for being objective is not nice. Stokes does have a valid point. It hasn't been proven, but it hasn't been disproven.

I use to think of greenhouse gases being a culprit in global warming too, but if one watches some tidbits on weather, one will find that there may be something else to it. For instance, in the Yukon, it reached 100 degrees on July 27 1915 well before millions of vehicles being on the roads and big industry polluting the atmosphere. It's something worth considering.
 
You guys coming down on Stokes for being objective is not nice. Stokes does have a valid point. It hasn't been proven, but it hasn't been disproven.


No because he is being a stubborn idiot, he still references to irrelevancies as you have about Global warming in a Politics thread. Seriously some ppl need to learn three simple things:

i) reading
ii) coherency
iii) relevance.

I use to think of greenhouse gases being a culprit in global warming too, but if one watches some tidbits on weather, one will find that there may be something else to it. For instance, in the Yukon, it reached 100 degrees on July 27 1915 well before millions of vehicles being on the roads and big industry polluting the atmosphere. It's something worth considering.

BLAH,BLAH,BLAH:

http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=47
 
Nico:

There is no need for ignorance. I'm stating a fact that happened well before industry and millions of vehicles were on the roads. As stated, I too thought that it was greenhouse gases, but I'm not so sure now; re: Yukon getting 100 degrees in 1915. I'm having an honest discussion, and all you can do is bleep like a sheep.
 
IGNORANCE is usually absent to the ignorant

Your lack of reading logic is evident in your last post. Why are being retarded? I suggest you talk about Russia not what you think is what this thread should be. Be gone, Ignoramus is stokes your lover?
 
I hate to break it to you, but I'm not ignorant

LOL, and you showed it. LMFAO! That is pathetic and ignorant like that is going to change the fact you’re a ignorant? Go learn how to correctly read English and connect to threads relevantly. Do I need to write in big lettering to you as well oh ignorant one? NIOZ NORADS!!! OHSH NOFHE!:rolleyes:
 
Oh, and how did I show it? Did I say something that proves I'm ignorant? I don't believe so. On the other hand, you have shown plenty of ignorance! I'm done with you little boy.
 
Oh, and how did I show it?

Let's see:

Russia refuses to ratify Kyoto protocol

doesn't =

I use to think of greenhouse gases being a culprit in global warming too, but if one watches some tidbits on weather, one will find that there may be something else to it. For instance, in the Yukon, it reached 100 degrees on July 27 1915 well before millions of vehicles being on the roads and big industry polluting the atmosphere. It's something worth considering.


What connection? That is ignorance, if you don't see it, then you've only proved me more. I am confident now you are a pretentious ignorant shit. Be gone; stop wasting time and forum space.
 
Re: Re: Bad news, Stokes

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
For every scientist that puts stock in it, I can show you one that doesn't. Like I said, the jury is still out, and it will continue to be until the legitimate scientific studies are completed - all of which probably won't be done until at least 2020, due chiefly to the lack of long-term data tabulation to support research.

In the meantime, Free-for-all!!! Responsibilities are for Martians.

EDIT: Oh hay guys, looks like man is to blame for global warming after all:

Well, ladies and germs, Stokes is the SciForums ignoramus mascot.

Now, we all know internal combustion engines have existed since the dawn of humanity and fossil fuel burning had been employed by the prehistoric man. :rolleyes:

**too much common sense below. proceed with caution**

In the past, forests were numerous and the population very low. The earth's life support system could sustain that without much problem. Today forests are dwindling at an alarming pace, our population is increasing, and our dependence on fossil feul is going no where but up. What is the supremum of the the earth's eco system? How far can we push it before it's too late. As pResident Bush said of Iraq: "I dont want to wait for the smoking gun" before concluding that we need to chill-the-fuck-out.
 
Re: Re: Re: Bad news, Stokes

Originally posted by kajolishot
Well, ladies and germs, Stokes is the SciForums ignoramus mascot.

Now, we all know internal combustion engines have existed since the dawn of humanity and fossil fuel burning had been employed by the prehistoric man. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
what
In the past, forests were numerous and the population very low. The earth's life support system could sustain that without much problem. Today forests are dwindling at an alarming pace, our population is increasing, and our dependence on fossil feul is going no where but up. What is the supremum of the the earth's eco system? How far can we push it before it's too late. As pResident Bush said of Iraq: "I dont want to wait for the smoking gun" before concluding that we need to chill-the-fuck-out.
Click to expand...
what

You know that the middle ages were warmer than today, right? Must have been all those cars they were driving around. Oh wait.

In other news, nico continues to be unable to understand the depth of a very complicated issue. Film at 11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top